Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-8 and 10) in the reply filed on 2/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the reference CN109133769 does not teach the claims as amended. This is not found persuasive because, as recited in the rejections below, Okemini et al., Effects of rice husk ash as filler on the bond strength and mechanical properties of ceramic tile mortar, Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research 8(2), pgs 114-112, (2016), teaches the inventive concept, including advantages in the claimed biomass ash range. Examiner further notes if the composition is found to be allowable, Applicant may rejoin the method incorporating such a composition.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The preamble to Claim 1 recites the transition language “comprising or consisting of.” Examiner notes “comprising” is broader that “consisting of” and using both as alternatives would appear superfluous since this would appear to have the same meaning as merely using “comprising.” Thus, if Applicant intends to use open language imparted by “comprising,” they should utilize this transition language. If they desire more narrow closed language scope impart by “consisting of,” then they should use this transition language. Examiner has interpreted the claim as being open claim language, i.e. such as “comprising” imparts. The same issue is present in Claim 7.
Applicant should also write out w% as weight %, or weight percent, for clarity.
Remaining claims are rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okemini et al., Effects of rice husk ash as filler on the bond strength and mechanical properties of ceramic tile mortar, Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research 8(2), pgs 114-122, (2016) (hereinafter “Okemini”).
Examiner notes the “hydraulic binder” is interpreted to comprise only the ordinary Portland cement and the biomass ash, the weight percentages recited being relative to each other in this “hydraulic binder” component, but the amount of “hydraulic binder” in the cementitious composition being unstated in the claim.
Regarding Claim 1, Okemini teaches a cementitious composition comprising (See page 114, Abstract, wherein a mortar is a cementitious composition)
a) a hydraulic binder itself comprising (in each case relative to the total dry weight of hydraulic binder)
ai) 50 - 92 w% of Ordinary Portland Cement (See page 115, 2.1 Materials, teaching the cement as ordinary Portland cement (OPC)), and
aii) 21 - 30 w% of biomass ash (See Abstract, using rice husk ash (RHA), a biomass ash, as a filler; and page 116, Table 2, teaching formulations with loadings of RHA 10.0 wt%, 12.0 wt%, and 14.0 wt% relative to 37.0, 35.0, and 33.0 wt% of OPC, respectively, and wherein the “hydraulic binder” is only OPC and biomass ash, thus making the respective RHA biomass weight percentages 10/(10+37)=0.213, 12/47=0.255, and 14/47=0.298, thus making hydraulic binder of 21.3w% RHA (and 88.7w% OPC), 25.5w% RHA (and 74.5w% OPC), and 29.8w% RHA (and 70.2w% OPC) in the examples using loadings of RHA 10.0 wt%, 12.0 wt%, and 14.0 wt%, respectively, all within the claimed range);
b) 0.01 - 0.5 w% (relative to the total dry weight of the cementitious composition), of cellulose ether (See page 116, top of page and Table 2, teaching 0.5% of the dry mix, i.e. the total dry weight of the cementitious composition, in all examples being CMC, i.e. carboxyl methyl cellulose, which is a cellulose ether).
Regarding Claim 4, Examiner notes the redispersible polymer powder (RPP) is optional and if never specified as being required. Thus, Claim 4 applies when the RPP is present, but does not require an RPP, and thus this claim is satisfied when no RPP is present within the dry mix as in Okemini. Note the claim must definitively state the RPP is in the cementitious composition if such an interpretation is not desired.
Regarding Claim 6, Okemini teaches a standard sieve to size the RHA biomass ash to 187 microns, i.e. 0.187 mm (See Abstract).
Regarding Claim 7, Okemini teaches the dry mix is formed together before water is added to it (See page 117, Mechanical Properties). Any area where the dry mix is held before mixing is a first compartment A and anywhere where the water is held before mixing a second compartment B, these “compartments” necessarily being spatially separated prior to mixing.
Regarding Claim 8, Okemini describes the watered dry mix as a “ceramic tile mortar” an “adhesive mortar,” thus making it a “tile adhesive” as claimed (See page 117, Mechanical Properties).
Regarding Claim 10, Okemini specifically recites the mortar as having low void spaces, i.e. low porosity (See page 120, Conclusion), thus inherently making it less susceptible to water intrusion and reasonably making it a “waterproofing mortar” without more specific recitation as to what such a mortar requires structurally.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okemini as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Burgos Enriquez (US 2018/0002229).
Regarding Claim 2, Okemini teaches the composition of Claim 1, as described above. Okemini teaches rice husk is a common “agro waste” with minimal industrial demand generally, but a suitable pozzolan when burned to ash (See page 115). Examiner submits it would have been apparent similar agro wastes known to be used similarly to RHA as pozzolans with cement in hydraulic binders to form mortars could have predictably been substituted for the RHA to similar effect in the mortar therein so as to make use of various available agro waste for this purpose. Another common agro waste burned to ash and used similarly to RHA as a pozzolan in the hydraulic binders for forming mortars is bagasse ash (See Abstract, page 1, paragraphs [0023]-[0026], and page 4, paragraph [0120], wherein bagasse ash is taught as one of two alternatives to RHA as a pozzolan from agro waste in hydraulic binders with Portland cement to form mortars). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize bagasse ash instead of RHA as the pozzolan in Okemini. Doing so would have predictably enabled to usage of other types of available agricultural wastes known to be similarly applicable to RHA as pozzolans in hydraulic binders for forming mortars.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okemini as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Garuti, Jr. et al. (US 2010/0034978).
Regarding Claim 3, Okemini teaches the composition of Claim 1, as described above. As discussed above, Okemini teaches CMC as the cellulose ether, but not those recited. However, cellulose ethers are well-known additives in cement, such as thickeners, and cellulose ethers such as methylhydroxyethylcellulose (HEMC) are known equivalents to CMC as cellulose ether in cement, such as Portland cement (See page 3, paragraphs [0019]-[0020], teaching HPMC and CMC as known cellulose ether additives in cement used as thickeners/rheology modifiers). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use HPMC instead of CMC in Okemini. These common cellulose ether additives in cement would have predictably had an equivalent additive function when utilized at similar loadings in cements as described therein.
Regarding Claim 5, Okemini teaches the composition of Claim 1, as described above. Okemini doesn’t teach superplasticizers such as lignosulfates, but these are well-known additives to adapt mechanical properties of the cement (See page 4, paragraph [0024], teaching cementitious composition may have 0.1-10% superplasticizer of lignin sulfonates, i.e. lignosulfates, suggesting such loadings are known in similar composition to achieve the mechanical benefit of a super plasticizer). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize lignosulfates as additives within the claimed range in Okemini. Doing so would have predictably enabled processing and mechanical benefits for the mortar therein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746